Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, the report on the EU’s foreign policy towards Brazil, Russia, India and China (the BRICS), and other emerging powers including Turkey, Indonesia and Mexico, rightly acknowledges the increasing role these countries play in our foreign policy and the increasing contribution they are making to the global economy. We have also seen an increased participation in cooperation in the policies of the BRICS and the emerging powers on an international level, and this is to be encouraged at all times.

We can now see the development of a multipolar system where economic and political power is distributed between a number of blocs. It is for this reason that I support the report’s proposal for the development of a coherent EU approach, to treat the BRICS as a single bloc and to also seek to establish partnerships with each of the countries within the bloc, which will prove to be invaluable when responding to global challenges such as climate change, terrorism and, of course, the financial crisis.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, I took part in a debate in the United Kingdom last month against our former Europe Minister about these BRICs. He said: ‘What you have to understand, Hannan, people like you, is that we sell more to the Netherlands than we sell to the whole of Brazil. We sell more to Belgium than we sell to the whole of China’. I replied, ‘That is precisely the problem’. Which is the better long-term prospect?

When we joined the European Union in 1973, we had the impression that we were hitching our wagons to a powerful locomotive. Western Europe had indeed grown spectacularly in the years following 1945. It had far outperformed the United Kingdom, burdened as it was with the enormous debt-to-GDP ratio that it had at the end of the Second World War.

But we can now see in retrospect that our timing could hardly have been worse. In relative terms, Western Europe stopped growing in the oil crisis of 1974 and never really got going again. We foolishly stood aside from the parts of the world which are still developing, where the growth still is, not least the Anglosphere and Commonwealth markets to which we are tied by habit, blood and speech. We are cabined, cribbed, confined in a dwindling customs union. We should raise our eyes to the broader, brighter and more distant horizons that our fathers took for granted.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I was opposed to a report in the Committee on Foreign Affairs on BRICS on the basis that there was little politically in common between these rising powers other than their self-evident vast and growing economic and military strengths.

I support good relations with the countries individually but I am under no illusion that China remains a one-party dictatorship, Russia has an authoritarian government which openly tolerates high-level corruption, whereas India and Brazil are liberal democracies with the same fundamental values, legal checks and balances and freedoms as EU Member States. My group is particularly keen on advocating stronger trade links through deep and comprehensive free trade agreements with both India and Brazil – the latter ideally through Mercosur, as Latin America enjoys the same growth rate of about 8% as China, and has a collective economy roughly the same size as China’s, but is totally different by sharing our common democratic values.

Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Madam President, by voting in favour I wanted to express my support for the need to reformulate EU foreign policy towards BRICS. They should definitely have stronger relevance in our foreign policy.

There is a space for closer cooperation between the EU and the BRICS countries. This is especially relevant at a time when BRICS countries are showing their clear ambitions in foreign policy terms. From this point of view it will be important to bring the emerging economic powers to take a different role in international development policy. In my opinion this role should better reflect their share in the global GDP.

Changes in the world economic landscape and in the new role played by countries like China, India and Brazil give the opportunity for strengthening global development policies. The rising economic strength of these countries means taking up more responsibilities in opening up their markets to the least developed countries, for example through preferential schemes but also on a non-discriminatory basis towards the rest of the WTO membership.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Madam President, of course we in Europe have a duty to ensure that we develop a coherent approach towards BRICS. However, I do want to stress the point that, in foreign policy terms, each BRICS country demands a different approach and a different treatment. Of course they have all kinds of things in common economically. Having lived in a BRICS country and worked in a situation where you can get things done quickly without the chains and encumbrances of red tape, I can only say that economically they are going to go places quickly.

However, politically we have not shown here in the European Union that we have the sophistication in foreign policy terms to develop and deal with these very varying political states in a sensible and sophisticated way. That is what we should be concentrating on and, if we cannot do that, we should leave it to Member States who can.

Syed Kamall (ECR). - Madam President, as previous speakers have said, I think it is very important that we recognise that the BRIC countries are different and that when looking at the global outlook we do not treat them as one large monolith. As Pink Floyd might have said, we should not treat them as another BRIC in the wall.

What we should be looking at is the granularity, and the differences between individual countries. So, for example, Brazil offers great prospects for many companies across the EU. The same goes for Russia but the problem is, as Kasparov said, when it comes to elections you already know the result, but you do not know what the outcome might be. India is the world’s largest democracy, with over a billion people and the rule of law, but not actually enough economic liberalisation. And when we look at China, there has been the economic liberalisation but not enough freedom and human rights.

All these things can only be enhanced with greater trade from the EU, but it is time that we started to try to match the growth of the BRICS countries rather than bring in policies such as the financial transaction tax which would actually reduce growth in the EU in these difficult times.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, I welcome the report on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures. If the EU and not national governments are deemed best placed to lead on a particular issue, then consistency should be paramount.

This report puts forward what seem to be balanced recommendations to the Council for when the EU needs to place sanctions on these regimes. It is important, however, that the EU should develop clearer definitions of what sanctions criteria are, which should also be in line with the EU’s strategy on human rights. It is equally necessary to gain support for the EU sanctions policy from all of our international partners when they have been applied to third countries, which would only strengthen the impact of the policy globally. Clearly the use of sanctions needs to be coupled with diplomacy, which is often the preferred method of responding to authoritarian regimes by the majority of our Member States and should be respected as the preferred collective tool.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, people often do not realise the extent to which the European Union aggressively exports its ideology. Just as the US did after the Second World War and just as the Soviet Union did during the revolutionary period, so the European Union attempts to encourage other parts of the world to form regional blocs in mimicry of its own structures. It does not just make its aid dependent on reproductive rights and so on, but it very often – and far more damagingly – requires countries to be part of whatever regional bloc is nearby. It makes clear that it will not sign trade or aid deals with individual sovereign states but will only deal bloc to bloc.

People often do not realise the extent to which organisations like Mercosur, the Central American Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Union, are not just bodies encouraged by the European Union, but were really creatures of the EU, sponsored by the Commission and largely dependent on it for their financing. This creates a beautifully circular argument for European federalists who say, ‘We have to be part of this big bloc because that is what the rest of the world is doing’, when of course they are obliging the rest of the world to do so. In reality, it is the little countries that are doing well. The wealthiest countries of the world are the Monacos and the UAEs. In the top ten only one state has a population of 7 million. It is by being this large, elephantine presence that we have made ourselves poorer and less relevant.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, targeted sanctions are an essential soft power economic mechanism against misbehaving states that the EU can deploy to enforce the combined political will of its Member States. Most recently the measures agreed by the EU in denying Iran some of its oil revenues are making it harder for the leadership to move money around the world, as a result of its non-cooperation with mandates and orders from the IAEA and the UN to conform with its international obligations over its nuclear programme, and this will now put much more pressure on Tehran to come back to the negotiating table.

I therefore welcome the Watson report and especially its recommendations for developing a consistent and coherent sanctions policy in the Council of Ministers, and its emphasis on the importance of acquiring wider international support such as the UN for EU sanctions to give them even further punch and effect in future.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, I welcome the report on cross-border transfer of company seats as this has clear economic benefits for businesses. As a consequence, businesses are able to relocate, or will be able to relocate, with much more ease, thus saving them much-needed time and, in many instances, money in determining where their company seat is located.

I strongly believe that cross-border company migration is a fundamental part of ensuring the completion of the internal market and will enable us to adapt to a more coherent EU-wide policy on these procedures. It is going to be welcomed by businesses across the EU and it is particularly pertinent when one of the main complaints I hear from businesses is that they are prevented from migrating to other parts of the EU, given the existence of high administrative burdens in some areas that they would prefer to avoid. It is for these reasons that I am happy to support this report.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Madam President, I was the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on this report and I would like to make a couple of points to support my vote in that regard. In that opinion we try to emphasise that Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union guarantee freedom of establishment for all companies and firms, ensuring that there are no barriers. Cross-border company migration is one of the crucial elements in the completion of the internal market.

However, there is a real lack of consistency in legislation on transfers and on procedures for transferring registered offices, real head offices, existing companies or firms incorporated under national law from one Member State to another. We need to eliminate these problems. But in doing so we must ensure that any legislation prevents abuses such as the setting-up of mailbox companies and protects the interests and guarantees the existing rights of creditors and employees.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, the report on the budgetary control of EU humanitarian aid takes on board the criticisms of the European Court of Auditors in that it recognises the instances in which accountability and transparency of the monitoring systems and internal audit procedures could be significantly improved. It also looks at how EU funds are used and managed by partner organisations such as the NGOs and UN agencies, and places greater emphasis on measuring results against initial indicators when the evaluations are taking place.

The report also proposes various improvements that could be made to the Framework Partnership Agreements, notably with the process of selecting partners to try to ensure that we achieve best value for money in addition to gaining the experience and expertise that they can offer. For me this is an important justification as my constituents back home in Wales are continuously questioning the value gained by UK contributions to the EU budget.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, in the European Parliament in Strasbourg recently I met a very clever man from Nigeria called Thompson Ayodele. He talked me through a number of statistics on foreign aid, and the figures were pitilessly clear. He showed that international assistance was not useless, it was actively harmful. If you compared countries in receipt of it with countries not in receipt of it over the same periods, the countries not in receipt grew faster, were more democratic, developed more impressively, and for the obvious reason: foreign aid breaks the link between taxation, representation and expenditure. It allows governments to remain in office without the support of their populations.

There are lots of things we could be doing to help developing countries. We could open our markets; we could abolish the common agricultural policy; we could encourage their exporters to sell. But the one thing that is absolutely not going to help is giving this kind of assistance, especially when we do not have the money. This is the crazy thing! We are borrowing money we do not have in order to give it to countries whose situation would thereby be worsened, all in order to make ourselves feel virtuous.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - (microphone off at start of speech) ... ECR Group are in favour of the report on the budgetary control of EU humanitarian aid. As a group we welcome the aims of the Working Group on Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-related Aid, namely to set out common standards of guidance and good practice and thus address the challenges of transparency and accountability in this area.

We are also keen to see more involvement of the beneficiaries of the aid in the process of aid planning and management, in an attempt to prevent the negative effects of humanitarian aid that can occur without careful monitoring by all the parties, for example the discouragement of local food production by the supply of surplus food aid coming from an unreformed CAP of the European Union.

I believe that there must be more conditionality, as well as accountability, with regard to the results, and that more careful monitoring must be put in place to measure the output of humanitarian aid against pre-set indicators. For example, there should be no aid whatsoever for a BRIC country like India or China.

James Nicholson (ECR). - Madam President, I have to ask the question whether this is really working, and working in a way in which it was supposed to be in the first instance. One of the greatest problems I have found in talking to people on the ground is the lack of continuity. By the time they get a programme into existence, the European Union changes its mind and goes on and creates another programme which they have to go through all the bureaucracy and red-tape to qualify for again.

I think we have got to get it right. I think it has the chance and it can deliver and do good. But there is too much bureaucracy, there is too much red tape, there is too much control, and people are not allowed to get on with doing the work themselves on the ground. I personally had a recent experience in Uganda where I went out with a local faith-based organisation who are drilling one new well every week, bringing water to miles around and doing a fantastic job. Those are the type of things we should be doing, when you see the disease and the way in which disease is being reduced in children, allowing them to live and giving them life.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Madam President, I was interested to read this report and pleased to see that it did pick up, albeit in a rather desultory way in the end, the issue of whether humanitarian aid and assistance has negative effects. I think that is the discussion that we should have in much more depth here in the Parliament because we tend to think it is a good thing per se. I happen to agree with overseas aid. I think that properly targeted and carefully monitored it can achieve great things.

However, I was particularly struck when listening to the rapporteur this morning talking about his misgivings about our working with the UN. This really was a disturbing part of the report and, if we cannot get that right, then we should seriously consider suspending some of those programmes until we are clear that they are acting in the best interest of the people that we are trying to help.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). - (microphone off at start of speech) …will no doubt be familiar with Descartes’ famous thought experiment of the little malicious demon which could control our reality by limiting our senses. Not for the first time I felt that the European Union is that Cartesian thought experiment come to life.

At the recent summit we had declaration after declaration about the need to create jobs, to reduce unemployment. And yet almost every measure that comes out of the European Union, on maternity and paternity leave, on limited working times, on the 48-hour week, on all the health and safety stuff, has precisely the opposite effect. There is this extraordinary gap between our proclaimed intention and everything that we are doing in reality.

The truth is we MEPs do not have the capacity to create jobs. We are, if you like, recipients of the largesse of the private sector which does create the jobs. But we do have the capacity to destroy jobs and we have been doing that by these intrusive regulations. The one thing we could do is to get out of the way so that entrepreneurs can make things, buy things, sell things and create employment for other people. In a variation of Hippocrates’ wisdom, we should first do no harm.

James Nicholson (ECR). - Madam President, I forget now how many Council meetings we have had since the crisis began, but there have been an awful lot of them, that is the one thing for sure. The other thing for certain is that we are still waiting on some real results actually coming from any of these Council meetings. All the time these results are not coming forward the uncertainty continues to grow in countries within the eurozone, and that is affecting everybody else, both within and without the eurozone.

To be very honest, I can see no clear certainty how they are going to be able in any way to amend or bring things around as far as the constitution is concerned. It is by no means certain, even if they agree on a constitution, that it will ever be approved. I think this is a great weakness.

So what we need in the future is real decisions and we must not go back to the nationalistic tendencies that we witnessed in this Chamber yesterday. I hope I never see that again because that is the one thing that should not happen. We should be acting in a positive way to resolve the problem, not in a negative way.

Diane Dodds (NI). - Madam President, last December my party in the British House of Commons put forward a motion which commended David Cameron our Prime Minister on his veto and his strength in opposition at the December summit. Therefore we viewed this latest summit as a test of that resolve. We were sadly disappointed. The question now being asked across the United Kingdom is what happened to the veto, what happened to the stand of principle to not allow EU institutions to police the fiscal compact?

This agreement represents a new precedent within the EU. One where, if 10, 15, 20 or 25 Member States cannot find agreement across all Member States, they simply go ahead and are allowed to use the mechanisms of the EU. This was what was vetoed in December, yet this was accepted in January. The people of the UK deserve an explanation but most of all they deserve a say in our relationship with the EU, which is like a juggernaut which rolls on, while a UK Prime Minister refuses to man the roadblock.

Syed Kamall (ECR). - Madam President, we have European Council after European Council and each time we are told it is decision time, we have to get serious about solving the eurozone crisis. But actually we never look at the two potential results. There are two potential outcomes, yet we remain in the impasse.

The first is that some of the weaker countries leave the eurozone and you have a stronger eurozone left behind, a sort of tougher euro which the markets recognise is too tough for them to break.

The alternative is that you accept that you have to have a fiscal union – the FU – with transfers from the richer countries to the poorer countries, led by Germany and those who want to see the eurozone not as an economic project but as a building block towards a political project, as a building block towards a United States of Europe or a federal Europe. If that is what they want, they have to be prepared to pay. It is time for Germany to put up or shut up. Do they want to keep the eurozone together with 17 countries or do they want to leave it to the markets?

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, I support the motion for a resolution concerning Iran and its nuclear programme since Iran has failed to prove that its nuclear programme is a peaceful development. With a lack of cooperation with international bodies, I have a number of concerns about this nuclear programme and its possible intentions. It is therefore, sadly, a necessary step to prohibit the importation of crude oil from Iran, twinned with imposing a number of other financial measures against the Central Bank of Iran. The sanctions proposed are therefore, in my opinion, a proportionate and reasonable response by the EU at the request of its Member States.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, I was unusual among British Conservatives in opposing the Iraq war and indeed in opposing the prolongation and permanence of the mission in Afghanistan, although I had supported limited action against the Taliban regime.

One of the reasons I was worried about the Western mission was that it seemed to me strategically erroneous to remove from both of Iran’s flanks what had up until then been powers which had been anti-Tehran and anti-Ayatollah and had contained a regime which has given ample evidence of its readiness to strike anywhere in the world. It sponsors militias and terrorist organisations in Central Asia, in the Balkans; it struck even as far afield as London and Buenos Aires.

There is an argument that we got the whole thing wrong, that we should have had nothing to do with Iran, that we should have just stayed out of the way. But we are now in a situation where we have embarked on action and, as Polonius says, ‘Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.’ This is, I think, the most important foreign policy issue of our age and it will take extraordinary resolve to see it through safely.

Seán Kelly (PPE). - Madam President, firstly we must say that these new sanctions are not aimed at the Iranian people who have been suffering long and hard under an authoritarian regime. Secondly, it is not our remit to prohibit any country from developing nuclear energy if it so wishes.

But of course in Iran all the evidence suggests that the intent goes far beyond nuclear energy and has a military dimension. This has been borne out by six resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, of which Iran is a member; all have been ignored. So like Mr Kamall said a minute ago in relation to another topic, it is time for us to put up or shut up, and putting-up means imposing sanctions with the hope that Iran will desist from its present course and return to the negotiating table.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, Parliament now has codecision on sporting matters and I am disappointed with the recommendations made in this first report.

This weekend sees the start of the Six Nations Championship, where Wales will proudly play their national sport. As an avid rugby supporter I cannot help but see this as a missed opportunity for the Parliament. The report should have focused on the positive contribution that sports can have on both participants and supporters in terms of instilling values of respect, fair play and social inclusion, and should have focused on how the EU could help the development of grass-root sports. It instead concentrates on how the EU can take advantage of the increasing popularity of professional sport, including how to develop a database to share information on hooligans, which effectively duplicates the work already being conducted by Europol. The report proposes that all agents representing European sportsmen have their fiscal residence in the EU. This clearly does not serve to promote sport across the EU and certainly not globally.

Today’s vote was undemocratic, however, when smaller groups requested roll-call votes. It is because they need to register disappointment on certain parts of reports. Today, sadly, that was denied by the President.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, we had some procedural problems with this vote today, as you will have seen, and I hope that they were nothing more than a mistake. I can understand that sitting where you do is a complicated and difficult job; there is an awful lot going on in the Chamber and the Rules of Procedure are not easy to follow.

But there was an issue of a lot of sensitivity for people in my party to do with the displaying of EU colours on sports vests. In what looked like a flagrant disregard for what the Rules of Procedure specify, our request for separate votes was set to one side. What alarmed me was that the President used the argument that, as long as the Chamber had decided by majority, this was all right. It was OK to set aside what the Rules say.

That is of course arbitrary government. We are all bound by our rule book, including the person who sits where you sit. As I say, I hope this was simply an error but I would urge all the people who occupy the President’s chair, please to pay strict regard to the Rules of Procedure, which are there and which are designed to protect individual Members in smaller groups in this Chamber.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I voted along with the rest of the ECR Group – where we were allowed to, that is – against the report on the European dimension in sport. In my opinion the report focuses far too much on the commercial side of sport. Instead, the development of grass roots in sport is overlooked in favour of developing means to take further advantage of the popularity of professional sport.

Instead of, for instance, creating a new EU database of football hooligans, which is already a Europol competence, we should focus on national authorities developing sports facilities at the more local level, with the aim that hooliganism can be diminished thanks to greater Community involvement and the ability to get along with others or work as part of team. We should focus on skills; participation in sport has been proven to be a way of teaching these skills. We should be giving more people the chance to learn a sense of discipline and self-worth rather than focusing exclusively on introducing new EU legal rules on fiscal residence for sports agents, as the report seems to suggest.

James Nicholson (ECR). - Madam President, I have several reservations relating to the proposals in this report. One such proposal sought to politicise sport by having the EU flag flown at all major sports events in the EU. Another proposal sought to politicise our sporting athletes by making them have an EU logo on their clothing. I cannot support those proposals, because I do not believe you should politicise sport.

I certainly do believe we should encourage sports participation in schools, increase the awareness of social responsibilities in sports stadiums, highlight the importance of volunteers in sport, increase the attention to the needs of disabled sports people. I call for sport to benefit from EU Structural Funds.

But in my 22 and a half years here I have never witnessed such a spectacle as I did today, when the President of this Parliament shamefully took his actions. I do not agree with Mr Hannan, because the President of this Parliament is well advised by the people to his left and to his right. He made that decision and he made the wrong decision and that needs to be retracted in the interest of the minority groups in this Parliament.

Syed Kamall (ECR). - Madam President, as the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Friends of Sport group I took a particular interest in this report, as did many other members of that group and the relevant committees. It is interesting that we wanted in our group to vote against the display of the EU flag on national sports jerseys. Surely it is important that we allow supporters to decide that they can support their own country?

But I think what is more important than anything else is actually what sport teaches us. Sport is all about fair play. Sport is all about adhering to the rules. As my old school song used to say, it is all about tasting the sweet of victory and the salt of defeat. At the European level there have been moves towards more fair play. UEFA, the football organisation, has a UEFA fair play award.

But when it came to democracy in this Chamber today, the rules were thrown out. The spirit of fair play was completely ignored by the President of the Parliament. Had there been a fair-play award for democracy, Schulz would not have got it.

Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). - Madam President, I welcomed the positive vote on the Iturgaiz report. Through it the Parliament is adding its voice to the numerous petitions sent by citizens from all over Europe to call on Member States to properly transpose the Waste Framework Directive.

It has become clear that the management of waste disposal is posing a political and social problem in many Member States and the European Commission has a fundamental role in controlling and guiding them to ensure the proper enforcement of the EU waste acquis at national level and raise greater environmental awareness among citizens. This is the right time to stop saying waste is an issue and turn it into an opportunity for job and business creation because efficient waste management strategies can provide enormous opportunities for both employment creation and revenue enhancement while ensuring environmental sustainability.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, it is a report that highlights the fact that, despite the directive being adopted, many times we have actually seen huge numbers of breaches across different Member States. It is certainly true that it has not been uniformly implemented across the 27 Member States.

This is reinforced by the sheer number of petitions and letters received by the Parliament, where EU citizens, including a number of my Welsh constituents, have also directly expressed their concern about potential breaches of a number of such EU directives. It is time that we use all technology available to us and see this as a huge way of being able to embrace technology and deal with our waste effectively.

I voted in favour of this report today in order that we can move things on. Implementation of existing rules is all well and good but we also need to embrace that technology to move things forward.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I voted with the ECR Group in favour of the report on the application of the Waste Management Directive. The European Parliament receives many petitions, including from the United Kingdom, concerning issues of waste management and the infringement of the EU directives that govern it. It is evident from this fact that in many Member States directives are not being transposed or enforced in a satisfactory way.

We agree with the conclusions of the report that all illegal landfills should be closed, secured and rehabilitated. We also agree that guidance should be given as to the location of the landfill sites with relation to local housing, schools and health facilities and that there should be better inspections and more consultation when waste facilities are in their planning stages.

Furthermore I agree, particularly now that there is clean, high-temperature incineration technology available, that it is preferable to burn waste rather than placing it in landfill sites, especially given the increasing proportion of our waste that is now being recycled and, as I said, the technological improvements which are now being developed in this area.

James Nicholson (ECR). - Madam President, as others have said, this is an extremely important subject and has got to be dealt with in a way that everyone can be happy with. It is a very difficult subject as well. Illegal landfill sites cannot be tolerated anywhere and I think we have had some experience of that. I will not get involved in the detail, but there are very few people who have not had some experience of it.

We should also make it clear that we cannot allow local and public authorities to get away with not stipulating standards and not bringing sites to the same standards as others. I have seen some of these sites where a lot of leaching was taking place and I believe better solutions can, should and must be found where necessary. This must end. By dragging our feet we are allowing it to continue. We certainly do not need any more EU agencies for waste management; I think it is time to move forward.

Seán Kelly (PPE). - Madam President, I think this is a lost opportunity. The Commissioner here at the debate this morning pointed out that there could be EUR 72 billion made available to the economy, 242 million fewer tonnes of emissions and lots of jobs created if waste was properly managed across the European Union. Instead we have had too many countries that would not even apply the directive leading, as Kay Swinburne said, to many petitions coming here.

I led one myself and I am pleased to say that, as a result of the decision here and the direction given by the Committee on Petitions, EUR 40 million has now been committed to closing a toxic site in my constituency, Haulbowline, which was leading to an increase in cancer 37% higher than the national average. That is the kind of action that is needed. Every Member State should take this on board: to eliminate waste firstly – restaurants and households could have far less waste – and then to utilise it properly.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Madam President, I supported the report today on the Daphne Programme, which it is hoped will make a contribution to assisting women who have been victims of domestic violence. It is only right that the Commission focuses on strengthening programmes in Member States which have so far limited participation in this programme, to ensure that victims are not being overlooked wherever they may be in residence.

I agree that more support is needed in developing programmes to eradicate honour killings, particularly as there have been a number of high-profile cases in the UK, which indicates that more work needs to be done urgently on this emotive matter. Whilst I have reservations about some of the recommendations made in this report, such as the proposal to allocate funding to candidate countries, I believe that on balance it was something that I could support.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I too voted with my group, the ECR Group, in favour of the report on the Daphne programme. The work that the Daphne programme seeks to carry out is extremely valuable and the making available of some funding to NGOs in all EU Member States who require it in order to help combat violence against women and children – the most vulnerable members of our society, which is a truly shocking phenomenon – is one we should strongly support. The call on the Commission to work with those Member States whose participation in the programme so far has been weak, in the hope that all Member States will be at a similarly reasonably high level in terms of their involvement, is also one we support.

We should also support the move for the programme to focus more of its attention on the eradication of so-called – and rather shocking – honour killings and female genital mutilation, which sadly still goes on in some Member States and should have absolutely no place whatsoever in a European society.

Diane Dodds (NI). - Madam President, I welcome this report into the Daphne programme, which can be a key tool in combating violence against women, children and young people across the EU. In my own constituency of Northern Ireland, figures show that domestic violence accounts for approximately one third of all crime, with the police service attending an average of 60 domestic-related incidents per day, with a large amount still going unreported. The Daphne programme and others like it can play a pivotal role in the fight against domestic violence and abuse.

In Northern Ireland there are many excellent programmes carried out at local level with outstanding work being done by local community groups across my constituency. I believe that such organisations are the key to combating issues of violence and abuse, as they are best placed to cater for the individual needs of citizens in their region. Simpler and easier access to funding is essential and should be a feature of any new provision.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I voted with the ECR Group in favour of the report on women’s situation in war. War crimes against women in conflict zones are atrocious and truly shocking and often subject to almost total impunity, as they are seen themselves as a means of warfare. As a result, women are not only the victims of regular military action but also the victims of sexual violence, mainly taking the form of rapes and even gang rapes in some cases.

We agree that there is a need for more support for women’s organisations that operate locally in Member States in order to raise awareness of women’s rights at a grass-root level, particularly in areas of conflict. We should also welcome the setting-up of a special EU representative on women, peace and security within the European External Action Service, again to help to deal with this very serious problem on the ground.

Diane Dodds (NI). - Madam President, although this report was about women in war, I want to put on record in this House my gratitude to those women in Northern Ireland who have shown remarkable courage during a vicious terrorist campaign.

For many years I have represented parts of Belfast which have suffered the murderous effects of terrorist violence, sectarian division and economic and social deprivation. In the midst of this, women’s groups like Shankill Women’s Centre and many others have shown tremendous leadership and done hugely important work in areas of education, training and employment, and community reconciliation. In rural Northern Ireland as well, women’s groups have been to the fore. Although in rural areas isolation and distance are natural barriers, the same social, economic, sectarian barriers remain. We owe these groups a huge amount of our gratitude; I would like this House to have that on the record.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, the Millennium Development Goals set out a laudable collection of aims that the international community has pledged itself to achieve by 2015. For these to be realised, however, an essential prerequisite has to be fulfilled first, and that is universal access to modern and sustainable domestic power sources for the developing world’s population. Such access would have obvious benefits in the fields of health, the environment and economic development. Nevertheless, on this occasion I did not participate in the final vote of the Neuser report.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Madam President, I did vote for this report but only after very careful consideration, not because I do not believe that the poorest people in developing countries should have access to affordable energy – I very firmly do believe that – but because I do not believe that it is appropriate for the EU to seek to control how this comes about. The Millennium Development Goals, which I largely support, are very clear. They have been agreed; we have road maps established towards their achievement by 2015. Let us get on with that rather than confusing the picture by what is effectively an attempt to add another. Let us not set out prescribed routes to energy development.

The report mentions a number of market intervention measures and, although just short of recommending that we carry those through, I do believe we need to put a line down to say that market intervention should be avoided. Energy is a market and the best way to supply and develop it is through market forces.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I voted against the report on the annual tax report. In my group, the ECR, we fully supported the report in its initial aims – preventing double taxation, tax fraud and policing tax havens etc., as these are clearly of concern.

However, we could not agree with the report’s conclusions. We are as a group strongly in favour of the protection of national fiscal sovereignty in order to promote a low-tax competitive business environment throughout the European Union. We do not believe that fiscal federalism will do anything to promote responsibility in tax management at a regional level, nor do we believe that greater economic efficiency will be achieved as a result.

We agree with the sections of the report that address issues of transparency and believe that the number of loopholes in the system and the many uncertainties in the way it functions must be significantly reduced or reformed. We believe that better access to information on tax rules within the European Union Member States would go some way to address this matter.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I voted with the ECR Group in favour of the annual report on EU competition policy. It is clear on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of this important report that the EU’s policy on competition has indeed brought many benefits for the welfare of European consumers. It has aided the free movement of goods and services, as well as capital, and has become a vital part of ensuring the prosperity of the single market. We support what the report has to say on the main areas it addresses, particularly state aid, collective redress, fines and settlement procedures, and strongly believe that with the suggested measures in place it will continue to be a very useful tool in preserving the economic level playing field within the single market.

Can I also pay a special tribute to Italian Prime Minister, Mario Monti, who, as competition Commissioner 10 years ago when I know him in this Parliament, really put this essential EU competence on the political map as far as the countries like the United States were concerned. So well done, Prime Minister Monti, and now you have to do the same in Italy.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Madam President, I have often been asked by my constituents what the European Union has ever done for them. Sometimes it is a bit of a struggle to give any coherent answer, depending on what the news of the day happens to be. It is particularly difficult in the context of representing a Member State which is high up on the list of net contributors to the European budget.

So I was delighted to be able to support this report, which really deals with a subject where I am always consistently able to point at something that the European Union has done for us. EU competition policy is one area where I can be truly enthusiastic. It has provided that essential tool, eliminating the obstacles that Mr Tannock spoke about. I am particularly keen to see that the rapporteur has recognised the need to update rules. Constant update to processes is vitally important to maintain consumer confidence in what we are doing.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the EU foreign policy towards BRICS which makes recommendations, identifying key areas of reform, where the EU could seek to streamline its action and institutional architecture and thereby increase its potential and effectiveness as a global actor. I agree with the rapporteur that the overall coordination of EU foreign policy towards the BRICS and other emerging powers should be ensured by the Commission, that better linking of foreign and security policy with EU sectoral policies should be implemented by the following actions: increasing the participation of the EP in bilateral summits between the EU and its strategic partners, increasing the role of the BRICS in international development policy that better reflects their share in global GDP, strengthening the strategic dialogue between EU and USA on global governance and reform of international organisations. We, Members of European Parliament, conclude that the EU should take into account the new weight in political and economic terms of the BRICS and other emerging powers and use its political leverage to continue promoting universal values in the looming new multi-polar system of global governance and be at the forefront of the process of reform of the international governance system.

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution because I believe it is of fundamental importance for the EU to consider, in foreign policy terms, the growing political and economic relevance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. In this renewed world asset, the EU must be at the forefront of the reform of the international system and must use its political leverage to continue to promote universal values. To lead this process the EU needs to act as a single and robust political and economic entity. Without an inclusive new global governance system, based on full participation by the BRICS and other emerging economies, there will be limited international cooperation on major global issues. In addition to that there will be also the potential risk of political and economic fragmentation, and of competing world agendas. With this report indeed, we ask for a strategic partnership with each BRICS country as a means of advancing peace and global security, the promotion of human rights, democracy, sustainable development and global financial regulation.

Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − This week the Parliament has been discussing the EU's relations towards the BRICS and other emerging powers. Good relations with countries like Brazil are vital, especially in terms of encouraging trade. One key area of interest to me is the trade of agricultural products. We import large amounts of meat from Brazil; meat that comes from animals that do not have to comply with the same rigorous standards and regulation that our farmers are subjected to. One example is the introduction of yet another pointless and costly regulation to electronically identify all sheep within the EU. These new rules to monitor the movement of sheep are flawed. They require a 100% accuracy rate of recording to be achieved by farmers, a task which is impossible because the available technology is not 100% reliable. If our farmers fail to achieve a 100% accuracy rate, they face heavy financial penalties. This is completely unacceptable. I therefore urge the Commission to review this regulation to allow some discretion to reflect the reality of the unreliable EID technology.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this report, in which Parliament states that it ‘Believes that the EU should formulate its position regarding a closer relationship with the BRICS, even taking into account the fact that the EU’s vision and the BRICS countries’ vision with regard to binding commitments and institutionalised regimes may not necessarily always be the same; believes also that support from the BRICS countries for effective multilateralism might be gained in exchange for stronger representation in relevant international institutions; insists that the challenges posed by the rise of the BRICS should be seen as an opportunity rather than a problem;’.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − EU policy towards the BRICS and other emerging powers is important, but it is also important to understand the implications of furthering trading relationships and the consequences of same. In paragraph 12, the report supports a balanced and fair conclusion of the EU-Mercosur agreement. However, the Commission has indicated that such an agreement will damage the interests of EU agriculture. Indeed the Commission is prepared to accept that damage will be done by attempting to extend the scope of the EU Globalisation Adjustment Fund to farmers. I am totally opposed to such a proposal, which threatens the future of EU family farming at a time when we are concerned about food security and are reforming the common agriculture policy. For this reason I cannot support this report and abstained in the final vote.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It is known that there is the increasing and quasi-permanent coordination among the BRICS countries in various policy areas in the international arena, including at the United Nations with special regard to the recent cases of the UNSC resolution on Libya, the UN positions on the Côte d’Ivoire or Sudan, as well as concerning the EU’s status at the UNGA. I am confident in significant political, economic and social divergences among the BRICS countries and believe that the EU had no interest in dealing with the BRICS countries as a bloc by overestimating the significance of their foreign policy coordination.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The BRICS and current emerging economies do not constitute or comprise a formal grouping of countries designed to play a specific role in international affairs, and the EU should therefore develop a relationship with each one of those countries, taking note of their singularity and specific foreign policy objectives and aims. The EU should invest in strategic partnerships with each BRICS country and other emerging economies, as they increasingly play a role in the international arena, particularly in international organisations, such as the UN, as a means of advancing common goals, namely peace and global security, the rule of law domestically or internationally, the promotion of human rights, democracy, sustainable development and global financial regulation. However, the resolution was a bit unclear on how to proceed in that regard.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution where the EP recommends to the Council a consistent policy towards regimes against whom the EU applies restrictive measures when their leaders exercise their personal and commercial interests for their personal wealth within EU borders. I agree with the rapporteur on the proposed clearer criteria for EU sanctions, in order to enhance the consistency, transparency and credibility of their application. I also agree that an annual report should be made on the implementation of sanctions, the European Parliament should be fully and regularly associated in the review process and the evaluation of sanctions should be done in dialogue with the people and civil society organisations of the targeted countries, with the aim of developing and strengthening the respect for democracy and human rights. The EU Member States would have to declare when persons on sanctions lists have physical or financial assets within their borders, to apply financial sanctions or restrictive measures in case of any financial intervention. We, Members of European Parliament, believe that measures clearly targeted to the accountable regimes and EU coordinated action will strive to minimise the adverse impact on the civil population, in particular the most vulnerable.

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution because the European Parliament must reiterate once again that sanctions are not an end in themselves and that decisions on sanctions by the EU should be taken only after thorough evaluation of the most efficient way to support democratic change. The EU has often applied its sanctions policy inconsistently by treating third countries with similar human rights and democratic records differently. Such behaviour has often encouraged criticism for applying double standards. With this resolution we want to stress that sanctions should be applied regardless of political, economic and security interests. All restrictive measures must comply with international humanitarian law and with the principle of proportionality and must not penalise the most vulnerable population groups in countries affected by these measures. For these reasons I consider the ‘targeted sanctions’ overall a better instrument. Sanctioned leaders will be affected only if they are personally subject to pressure in the form of restrictions on their ability to move money, invest and access their financial assets, restrictions for travel or for diplomatic representation.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of Mr Watson’s report. The EU sets high standards amongst its own membership in terms of justice and human rights. It is only right that we are consistent in our approach when dealing with third countries and this report addresses many of the key issues.

Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. It has been long due to bring out the main weakness of the EU’s foreign policy and especially the human rights policy. It is absolutely regrettable that the EU is giving in on main values and principles, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law with excuses of being interdependent with certain authoritarian countries. Consistent sanctioning of authoritarian regimes and their main actors is one of most efficient ways to provoke a change. I very much welcome this report which calls for clear indicators and measures in defining the situation and dealing with authoritarian regimes. I call upon the Council and the Commission to implement and mainstream these suggestions without delay to the EU’s foreign policy, especially to trade policy with third countries. How can the EU be interdependent with a country like Russia which is delivering weapons to Syria that will be used to kill civilians and which is supplying materials to Iran for its nuclear plans that the EU is now sanctioning? We need consistency and clear rules and we need them now!

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − It is estimated that within the last two decades, USD 150 billion has left the countries of North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia) and that, in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak and his family were estimated to have a personal fortune of between USD 50 billion and USD 70 billion, predominantly invested in the EU and US. This report (which I welcome) calls for the EU to deepen and strengthen its array of restrictive measures against recognised authoritarian regimes by targeting their personal and commercial actions within the EU in order to deny authoritarian leaders and their prime associates the right to own property or hold money in EU countries, to prevent authoritarian leaders and their prime associates from educating their families in EU countries, to prevent authoritarian leaders and their prime associates from travelling within the EU and to prohibit authoritarian leaders and their prime associates from operating business interests within the EU.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I am confident that the EU should restrict totalitarian regimes not only with sanctions but limit also the application and use of the financial means of these regimes! It is known that in Egypt Hosni Mubarak and his family were estimated to have a personal fortune of between USD 50 billion and USD 70 billion, predominantly invested in the EU and US; the Director of the London School of Economics resigned over revelations that the LSE has been involved in a deal worth GBP 2.2 million to train Libyan civil servants; that a further GBP 20 000 was paid to the LSE for tuition for the Prime Minister of Libya, Mr Al-Mahmudi, who was named in the UNSC Resolution 1970 for, amongst other things, the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including the repression of peaceful demonstrators; it is estimated that the Gaddafi regime holds billions in assets across the EU, especially in the UK (private property); Kim Il Jong keeps approximately USD 4 billion in European banks; Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese President, is suspected of siphoning off USD 9 billion from his country’s oil boom and depositing much of it in British banks. I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Some examples of authoritarian leaders, and their circles, with assets within the EU: (1) it is estimated that within the last 2 decades, USD 150 billion has left the countries in North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia); (2) in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak and his family were estimated to have a personal fortune of between USD 50 billion and USD 70 billion, invested mainly in the EU and the US; (3) the Director of the London School of Economics resigned over revelations that the LSE had been involved in a deal worth GBP 2.2 million to train Libyan civil servants; (4) and that a further GBP 20 000 was paid to the LSE for tuition for the Prime Minister of Libya, Mr Al-Mahmudi, who was named in UNSC Resolution 1970 for, amongst other things, gross and systematic violation of human rights, including the repression of peaceful demonstrators; (5) the Kaddafi regime is estimated to hold billions in assets across the EU, especially in the UK (private property); (6) Kim Il Jong keeps approximately USD 4 billion in European banks; (7) Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, is suspected of siphoning off USD 9 billion from his country’s oil boom and depositing much of it in British banks.

Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − I have long been at the forefront of ensuring that the EU maintains restrictive measures in place against key members of the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe and am happy that the Parliament has recognised the important role that restrictive measures can play in bringing about democratic change in repressive regimes.

It is important that the EU and its Member States work together with the other democracies in order to ensure maximum effectiveness of these measures. Equally, the EU must become better at explaining that restrictive measures are not sanctions against the population of countries with autocratic rulers, but specific measures which only target those individuals and businesses that have directly benefited from their association with these autocratic regimes. I voted in favour of this report.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution requesting the Commission to submit swiftly a proposal for a directive on the cross-border transfer of company seats. Currently, there is a lack of consistency in legislation on procedures for transferring the registered office or real head office of an existing company from one Member State to another within the Single Market. The transfer of company seats is often accompanied by administrative difficulties, high costs, social implications and the lack of legal certainty. We, Members of the European Parliament, agree that the process within the EU should be harmonised, the directive should apply to limited liability companies and allow companies to exercise their right of establishment by migrating to a host Member State without losing their legal personality. The transfer should not circumvent legal, social and fiscal conditions. Any company against which proceedings for winding-up, liquidation, insolvency or suspension of payments or other similar proceedings have been brought should not be allowed to undertake a cross-border transfer of seat. This legal harmonisation will strengthen competitiveness at EU level.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − The management or board of a company planning a transfer should be required to draw up a report and a transfer plan. Before the management decides on the report and the transfer plan, the representatives of the employees or, if there are no representatives, the employees themselves, should be informed and consulted on the proposed transfer within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 2002/14/EC(2). The report should be submitted to the shareholders and to the representatives of the employees or, if there are no representatives, to the employees themselves. The report should describe and justify the economic, legal and social aspects of the transfer and explain its consequences for the shareholders, creditors and employees, who may examine the report during a specified period which may be not less than one month or more than three months prior to the date of the meeting of shareholders approving the transfer.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This calls on the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 50(1) and (2) (g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a directive on the cross-border transfer of company seats, following the recommendation set out in the Annex.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution which outlines the efficiency and effectiveness of the ECHO control, monitoring and supervision system, in particular when it comes to Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) partners or to international organisations (such as the UN). The EU (the Commission together with the Member States) is the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid. The EU’s total contribution of aid, including the Member States, in 2010, was EUR 2 957 million. The average budget managed by DG ECHO for its humanitarian aid activities between 2006 and 2010 is EUR 889 million annually. In 2010 the budget was reinforced to EUR 1 115 million to respond to crisis and disasters (Haiti, Pakistan). We, Members of the European Parliament, agree that there is additional need for sustainability, coherence and complementarity of humanitarian actions.

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution because it points out the need for strengthening the efficiency and effectiveness of budgetary control over the EU humanitarian aid managed by DG ECHO. The text underlines the areas of weakness in control over the funds and proposes improvements to be made. We stress the importance of establishing a clear regulation with the scope to have a single integrated reporting model, which would simplify the complexity of the administrative procedures. In this regard I also support the fact that ECHO is currently working on the development of a comparative cost information system in order to analyse the cost-effectiveness of project proposals. The awareness of project efficiency would finally allow ECHO to avoid investing in unfruitful projects.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. − The EU is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance. Of the total EUR 9.8 billion of humanitarian aid provided worldwide in 2010, 41% was delivered by the EU (accumulated by funds from the 27 Member States in addition to the Commission through DG ECHO). These funds allow the EU to show solidarity and provide immediate relief to regions hurt by natural and man-made disasters. The EU’s growing involvement and importance as a humanitarian aid provider is on the rise, and so are the requirements to ensure proper use of taxpayers’ money; thus I welcome the current report which reviews the budgetary control of EU humanitarian aid management by DG ECHO. Identifying areas of weakness in control over the funds and proposing points where improvements could be made is important for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian aid money. However, I also believe that the evaluation process should take account of the fact most recipient countries do not have the proper means to provide a full account of how money was spent, especially in a time of emergency. Therefore we must also show flexibility and adjust our budgetary control requirements to existing capacities of the recipient countries, in order to ensure our money is properly spent.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report, which recognises the benefits of seeking new arrangements for the provision of funding by DG ECHO, together with its partners; calls at the same time for the diversity of the actors involved in financing and implementing the European humanitarian programmes – the United Nations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, NGOs – to be borne in mind, given that disasters often transcend national borders and require multilateral, coordinated responses; and encourages the work being done to strengthen the capacities of local stakeholders and increase assessment and rapid response capabilities on the ground through DG ECHO’s offices as well as field experts.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The report basically points out areas of weakness in control over the funds and proposes points where improvements could be made. I totally agree with the rapporteur.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The EU (the Commission together with the Member States) is the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid. The EU’s total contribution of humanitarian aid, including the Member States, in 2010 was EUR 2 957 million, whereas the share of the EU Member States was 64% and the funds channelled through the Commission amounted to 36%. ECHO is the Directorate General (DG) of the European Commission responsible for the implementation of EU humanitarian aid (Regulation (CE) 1257/96). DG ECHO’s mandate encompasses humanitarian assistance and civil protection, the two main instruments at the EU’s disposal to ensure delivery of humanitarian assistance to the victims of disasters and protracted conflicts. ECHO implements its mandate by funding about 200 partners: NGOs, UN agencies, international organisations and specialised agencies of the Member States. The Commission manages its humanitarian activities from its headquarters in Brussels via a network of more than 40 field offices all over the world.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution which addresses the exchange of views on the Commission’s public consultation examining possibilities for introducing a system of collective judicial recourse (‘collective redress’) at European level. The report highlights the principle that anyone who has suffered damage must have the right to receive compensation but that those bringing collective actions must not be in a better position than individual claimants. The EU legal tradition is directed towards solving disputes between individuals rather than through a collective entity. Some Member States’ legal systems have developed differing approaches to the issue of collective redress. It is in this context that the Commission must put forward evidence that, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, an action at EU level is opportune. We, Members of the European Parliament, agree on the need for this new legal initiative and on initially proposed horizontal procedural actions and safeguards which should be further analysed, tested and developed.

Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. I believe that the lack of a collective redress system for the EU undermines the enforcement of EU legislation on consumer protection already in place, and consequently has a knock-on effect on consumer empowerment and confidence within the Single Market. In order to achieve a competitive and socially sustainable Single Market framework the Union cannot afford to keep putting off the creation of a Europe-wide collective redress mechanism for consumers and citizens. Sufficient amounts of reports, consultations, workshops and seminars have been drawn up and taken place at EU level. It is now time for the Commission to adopt a unified position and take clearly defined legislative action. The formula for completing the EU Alternative Dispute Resolution system, for which the Commission has recently brought forward a legislative proposal, necessitates the putting into place of this collective redress structure. To this end I feel that for any final ADR package to be endorsed by the European citizen the Commission must factor in the existence and availability of Europe-wide collective redress.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report, which acknowledges the importance of injunctive relief. In many cases, such as misleading advertising, lack of transparency of contracts, etc., damages might not occur and priority should be given to stopping any further unlawful behaviour. The Commission itself has indicated how Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on Consumer Protection Cooperation as well as Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests (the Injunctions Directive) can be improved in order to strengthen cooperation and injunctive relief.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Fair access to justice should be available to European citizens, including but not only via compensatory relief. To this purpose the Commission should put forward complementary methods that guarantee the full enjoyment of rights: amicable settlements, online dispute resolution mechanisms, public enforcement and common procedures for redress. I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I am in favour of calls for any proposal in the field of collective redress to take the form of a binding horizontal framework while a limited number of rules relevant to consumer protection or competition law could be laid down in separate articles or chapters of the horizontal instrument itself or in separate legal instruments.

Peter Skinner (S&D), in writing. − I want to thank my fellow shadows and the rapporteur working on the report on moving to collective redress. Key areas of our work involved how to balance the needs of consumers and society to have recourse to a procedure for a common and related complaint and the implications for such an approach. In particular I am concerned that an overwhelming effect might be to bring in a similar system to that of the United States. This is to be resisted at all levels. Similarly, the issue of competition and economic concentration lie at the heart of economic and industrial policy and are not simply procedural juridical matters.

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − I voted against this report because I believe that a sectoral approach would be more appropriate than the introduction of a horizontal instrument. Sectoral instruments, i.e. in competition law, have clear economic benefits whereas horizontal instruments may be applied in all areas of EU law and thus extend collective actions which I am firmly opposed to.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I welcome the Parliament’s rejection of the Commission’s proposals. Consumers must be provided with full and truthful information about their food and the Commission must now go back and draft a decent proposal. Claims on food labels about the health or nutritional benefits to consumers must be accurate and verifiable.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this motion for a resolution, which states ‘whereas in the light of the underlying principles governing the selection of permitted nutrition claims on foodstuffs, as outlined above, the new nutrition claim proposed by the Commission ‘now contains X% less of [nutrient]’, to be included in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, runs counter to the purpose and content of the basic instrument by being ambiguous, misleading and confusing to the average consumer;’.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − In the resolution the European Parliament opposes the adoption of the draft Commission regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 with regard to the list of nutrition claims and considers that the draft Commission regulation is not compatible with the purpose and content of the basic instrument. I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Whereas, as stated in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the use of nutrition and health claims must not be false, ambiguous or misleading, the European Parliament 1. opposes adoption of the draft Commission regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 with regard to the list of nutrition claims; 2. considers that the draft Commission regulation is not compatible with the purpose and content of the basic instrument; 3. calls on the Commission to submit an amended draft of the measure to the committee.

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution and against the Commission’s proposed ‘x percent less’ claim. It is of course true that the food industry should be encouraged to reformulate foods to make them healthier, and that allowing the industry to demonstrate and ‘claim’ reformulation to their customers will drive this process. I do not think anybody really disputes that. The issue is precisely how the industry is allowed to communicate this information to consumers, or, in other words, the methodology behind the health claim. And the fact remains that, with this proposed health claim, a product claiming to have ‘x percent less’ fat could still have a very high fat content compared to similar products on the market. This is why a significant majority of us in this House believe that this claim is essentially misleading. I fully support the reformulation of foods as part of the EU’s strategy on nutrition, but the Commission, in cooperation with EFSA, must find a better way to drive reformulation through health claims.

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This resolution had my support as I felt it unfair to mislead customers with wrong nutritional information. The proposed changes would have allowed ‘of x% less...’ on sugar, salt and fat content. This could have made food appear healthier than it actually is and make it harder to compare products. Our intention is to maintain a healthier population through encouraging companies to reduce the sugar, salt and fat content in food. The proposed changes would have instead provided a disincentive to improve the nutritional benefits. Labels should be kept as clear as possible, allowing consumers to choose food according to their true nutritional value.

Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − I want food labels to be simple and honest about what is inside them. So today was a victory for consumers, as the European Parliament supported me and my colleagues from across Parliament who objected to a new ‘x% less’ nutrition claim on food labels. The proposed claim had the potential to be very misleading. Given the number of nutrition claims already allowed, it is already hard for consumers to know which product is the best for themselves and their family. In particular, the new claim could have caused confusion with the existing ‘reduced’ claim, which actually requires a larger reduction of 30%, and this must be in comparison with a range of similar products on the market rather than previous versions of the same product. Now that Parliament has said no to this claim, the Commission will have to rethink their approach. Nutrition claims should be used to allow consumers to make healthier choices, if they want to, and not as a marketing ploy. We want to encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products to make them healthier, but it has to be meaningful, and not misleading.

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − I, like millions of other consumers, am confused every time I visit the supermarket. Labelling on food which tells me that an item contains 10% less salt or 20% fewer colourings is meant to be informative, yet, as often as not, such labels lead to mix-ups and misunderstandings. 10% less than what, I ask myself? That is also a question that this report has asked. I think that it has come up with the wrong answer. When I buy a packet of crisps telling me that it now contains 10% less fat, I assume that means that it contains 10% less fat than the previous recipe for the same product, rather than 10% less fat than a similar product. It is important that we all eat well and have the right information to be able to make the correct health choices, but this report makes things 100% more confusing rather than 100% clear.

Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. − With my fellow UKIP MEPs I abstained on this resolution because, although we agree with some elements, we strongly disagree with others, in particular the imposition of a financial transaction tax. Since the only option was a single vote on the report in its entirety, we could not support the GUE/NGL proposal.

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. − UKIP MEPs abstained on this resolution because, although we agree with some elements, we strongly disagree with others, in particular the imposition of a financial transaction tax. Since the only option was a single vote on the report in its entirety, we could not support the GUE/NGL proposal.

Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. − UKIP MEPs abstained on this resolution because, although we agree with some elements, we strongly disagree with others, in particular the imposition of a financial transaction tax. Since the only option was a single vote on the report in its entirety, we could not support the GUE/NGL proposal.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, in which Parliament rejects the International Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union and the recent changes in the EMU architecture (Economic Governance, European Semester, Pact for the Euro plus) and states that it believes that these changes form the most reactionary, undemocratic and extreme neoliberal response to the current crisis.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − In the resolution the European Parliament reaffirms its resolution of 18 January 2012. It is very good. In the final text of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union it would have been better to reach agreement under EU law. I am in favour.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution concerning the conclusions of the informal European Council meeting of 30 January 2012. I support the criticising opinion of the European Parliament and I agree upon the proposed improvements to the final text of the conclusions. I agree with the common concerns that the UK maintains its objection on the final text of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. The economic recovery requires measures to strengthen solidarity and boost sustainable growth and employment and insist that the European Council decides on concrete and far-reaching measures. I support the EP request for a further series of measures to ensure fiscal stability, and calls now for the establishment of a redemption fund, project bonds, a road map for stability bonds and the introduction of an FTT at European level, for which the Commission has already made a proposal. We Members of European Parliament point out that some further important elements are missing from the new Agreement, such as the avoidance of double standards between the norms in the Agreement and those in the Lisbon Treaty and contained in the acquis communautaire. We also insist and reiterate that EP participation in these negotiations is further extended.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. − The outcomes of the EU Summit of 30 January, 2012 were received with mixed reactions by colleagues. From my perspective, I welcome the announcement on the new fiscal treaty and hope it will be implemented without further delays. The Council’s decision to focus on growth as a complementary means to austerity is essential, since strict budgetary rules alone cannot solve the deepening of the crisis. Supporting SMEs, entrepreneurship and self-employment initiatives are the only way to encourage economic expansion, job creation and improving the EU’s long-term competiveness. On the other hand I deplore the fact only 25 Members rather than the whole EU decided to join the treaty. Because the agreed treaty does not really guarantee fiscal stability, coordinated action between all 27 EU Members is needed to restore investment and growth to Europe. Another point of contrast to EU shared solidarity is the exclusion of the European Parliament from participating in future meetings on EU governance. As a directly elected body, the European Parliament must be involved on a basis of equality with other EU institutions. Trying to address remaining challenges – the question of Greece for example – what we really need is leadership, flexibility and above all unity.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution which outlines and supports the conclusions of the Council informal summit on 30 January 2012 during which a new Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union was finalised by 25 of the 27 Member States. The Treaty aims to strengthen fiscal discipline through the introduction of stricter surveillance and more automatic sanctions, and in particular through the ‘balanced budget rule’.

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − The governance treaty agreed by the European Council on Monday was without question a better solution than the previous agreement. It now takes into account issues that I feel are vital; the need to focus more on growth, demonstrating fiscal restraint and working within the normal EU system wherever possible. However, these improvements were somewhat overshadowed by the fact that, as stressed in the passed resolution, it would have been better to have reached an agreement under normal EU law. I sincerely hope that the European Council will take note of the concerns raised by the Parliament and bear this in mind in future treaties.

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − With some irony, I use a French expression to describe my reaction to this report: déjà vu. When will the European Parliament get it into its head that more Europe is not the answer to the current financial crisis? When will the European Parliament stop rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic and get down to the business of creating growth and jobs by completing the Single Market and promoting free trade with countries like India? And when, oh when, will the European Parliament realise that no matter how many resolutions it passes calling for an EU-wide financial transaction tax, that no such tax is going to materialise? The European Parliament may wail, gnash its teeth or whimper liking a petulant child who wants a bicycle for Christmas, but it will not change the fact that taxation is a decision which needs to be taken unanimously by the Member States and the United Kingdom will not relent in its opposition to an EU-only tax. This is why the FTT will not happen, there are countless other reasons why it shouldn’t happen, first among which is the fact that even according to the Commission’s own figures it would be tremendously damaging to Europe’s economy.

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution because, thanks to the adoption of the amendment tabled jointly by the S&D and the Greens, it clearly states that the outstanding issues with Iran over its nuclear programme must be solved peacefully and that a military solution to the conflict is not even conceivable. It is also of fundamental importance to reiterate that, contrary to some states already in possession of nuclear weapons, Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and as such allows for inspections of its nuclear installations by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I support the Council double-track approach, but I believe that the sanctions must be carefully targeted at and proportionate to the objective pursued. The restrictive measures should be aimed at striking the power elites of a repressive regime, minimising as far as possible the adverse impact on the civilian population, especially the most vulnerable groups.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I fully share this House’s concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear development. I represent the SNP, a party which opposes weapons of mass destruction, in principle, and rejects nuclear energy as a viable energy source.

Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution. For years Europe and the world have observed with growing concern the Iranian nuclear plans. Unfortunately until now these concerns have only resulted in declarations without actions. It is extremely important that Europe has now finally decided to act and to impose clear and real sanctions upon Iran. Iran has to stop any nuclear plans that have military components. And it has to allow independent international specialists to observe and have a close look at its plans. The IAEA has to be allowed to enter the Iranian nuclear sites to see the real situation. I find it very regrettable that similar sanctions cannot be imposed at UN level, due to the Chinese and Russian veto. The EU needs to push for consistent sanctions also at UN level and remind China and Russia of their obligations, and call especially on Russia to halt any proliferation to Iran contributing to the nuclear plans.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − New sanctions, particularly an embargo on the import of crude oil to the EU, will help to persuade the Iranian Government to observe UN resolutions. Therefore, I would like to have sanctions to be aimed only at those responsible for violence and not to touch upon the population, especially the poor. The European Parliament calls on the Iranian authorities not to block the Strait of Hormuz, believing that such a step may result in regional conflict and provoke repressive actions from the international community. I support the Council of Europe in its determination to find a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue and achieve a reliable global solution. I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Although Paragraph 4, which ‘supports the new sanctions’, was adopted, overall the tendency of the resolution has developed very much in the direction of favouring a peaceful and negotiated solution. Three of our six amendments were equally adopted: Amendment 3 replacing ‘eventual military intervention’ by ‘further escalation’ (with 350 to 266 votes); Amendment 4 reiterating the EP position that the conflict has to be solved peacefully; Amendment 5 welcoming the recent IAEA delegation to Iran. Those that were rejected are: our Amendments 1, 2, 6 on the dangers of nuclear energy; reduction of oil and gas consumption in Europe; condemnation of all acts of aggression (against the UK embassy or against Iranian scientists or infrastructure).